full censor vs a crop sensor is their a $1500.00 difference

[KmH]

Macro (no AF) is a specialty segment for Nikon too.

 

[Trever1t]

regardless of the original post this has become a thoroughly enlightening (and amusing) thread!

As a shooter of 35mm film for decades and user of multiple digital platforms I finally coughed up the extra $ to buy a full-frame camera, if not for the viewfinder only.

The whole Nikon Vs. Canon debate is age old. I chose Nikon just for the fact that I can run almost any lens in the Nikon line up going back to the last century. I know lot's of guys who are trading in their Nikon's for Canon's and vice versa, though I'm lost as to why.

 

[kundalini]

As a shooter of 35mm film for decades and user of multiple digital platforms I finally coughed up the extra $ to buy a full-frame camera, if not for the viewfinder only..

You do realize that the D700 is only a 95% coverage in the viewfinder, yes? The D3X & S are 100% though.

 

[Trever1t]

yes i do.

 

[JClishe]

I think you read my reasoning wrong. lol

I read what you wrote.

That's why I said you read it wrong, not that you didn't read it. lol

Again, I read what you wrote.

You wrote "IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line"

You have no idea what kind of images the OP shoots, yet you tell him a full frame body is worth the investment.

You wrote "You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses.".

Again, you have no idea what kind of images the OP shoots, yet you clearly imply that a full frame body would be better him.

My reply was that you are making generalizations that do not take into account the OP's intend use for his camera. I read what you wrote, and based on what you wrote, my reply is accurate. If, however, my reply doesn't accurately reflect how you feel about this topic, then the problem isn't that I read it wrong. The problem is that you wrote it wrong.

 

[Vtec44]

I read what you wrote.

That's why I said you read it wrong, not that you didn't read it. lol

Again, I read what you wrote.

You wrote "IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line"

You have no idea what kind of images the OP shoots, yet you tell him a full frame body is worth the investment.

You wrote "You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses.".

Again, you have no idea what kind of images the OP shoots, yet you clearly imply that a full frame body would be better him.

My reply was that you are making generalizations that do not take into account the OP's intend use for his camera. I read what you wrote, and based on what you wrote, my reply is accurate. If, however, my reply doesn't accurately reflect how you feel about this topic, then the problem isn't that I read it wrong. The problem is that you wrote it wrong.

Oh God... lol

IMHO, you just need to take a chill pill.

. Not trying to be cocky or arrogant, but you would probably also be seriosusly impressed with my creativity and poses as well. A wedding is my natural envirement.

I was raised to do weddings.

 

[JClishe]

Oh God... lol

IMHO, you just need to take a chill pill.

Well you're definitely proving my implication that there's some opportunity for improvement in your communications.

BTW, I'd love to hear why you think I "read it wrong". If you can do that without a childish insult, that is.

 

[o hey tyler]

Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.

Have you looked at Canon's DSLR market share compared to Nikon?

 

[Vtec44]

Well you're definitely proving my implication that there's some opportunity for improvement in your communications.

BTW, I'd love to hear why you think I "read it wrong". If you can do that without a childish insult, that is.

Did you even read the quote where the OP specifically stated that he shoots weddings? That's my humble opinion and that's what I'd do if I get paid to shoot weddings and looking to upgrade from crop to FF sensor, and better lenses. That opinion is shared by a few others. I have some information of what he shoots based on his posts. If you missed his post and disagree with my opinion then it's fine. I'm not going to split hairs and call you out on it.

All in a drama-filled day on TPF.

 

[ausemmao]

Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.

Have you looked at Canon's DSLR market share compared to Nikon?

"Mild zing reply about the majority of DSLR purchases not being by photographers, and mass market not being necessarily synonymous with quality"

:greenpbl:

This is meant to be tongue in cheek

 

[Derrel]

And this is where a large,large majority of younger people in their 20's, and many digital newcomers have zero experience; they have never,ever,ever, owned a full-frame camera...they have ZERO experience with anything except what they own now, today, which is typically either a beginner-level, or a consumer-level, crop-body d-slr. People whose tastes and budgets run to Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Burger King are everywhere, trying to convince others that PBR and BK are just great!! Fine beer, and a great 'restaurant'. Snort.

*wonders if this self same argument works if one swaps cropsensor for fullframe and medium format for fullframe in the wordings. Esp considering that many older weddings were done with medium format gear as well as many other venues*

Overread, YES, this DOES apply to medium format...in fact, one of this forum's young guns SwiCh!FX (I know I am spelling his user name wrong,sorry A.J. !) has just recently begun shooting a Mamiya 645AF. As I recall, the 6x4.5cm format is around 2.7 times greater in area than 24x36 FF. And YES, you are "wondering" if the same argument works: I call speak from my own, actual life experience, having shot 4x5, 120 rollfilm, in both 6x6 and 6x4.5 formats...YES, the depth of field grows shallower at each angle of view, as the film format grows larger. So, even keeping the same angle of view (for example 35mm lens on 1.5x APS-C; 50mm on FF 24x35; and 80mm on 120 rollfiml 6x6) the appropriate "Normal Lens" angle of view on each format has LESS depth of field on each increasing format size. If you would like to see what 6x6 format looked like, go to a record store that sells 1960's and 1970's vinyl albums; about 90% of all record album covers in that time period were shot on Hasselblad 6x6 cameras, for an obvious reason: Hassy 500 series was THE leader among top pros, and 2) the square format PERFECTLY matched the album cover's square shape.

Canon design is driven by what works for their marketing department. Nikon design is driven by what works for photographers.

Can't argue against that - Canon does seem to pay too much mind to their marketing and not as much to their market when it comes to development - esp with their technology segmentation (ie why does the 7D not have any manual audio recording control and why does the 5DM2 not have better AF ).
Oh and they, technically, have one more mount release between the EF and EFS - 1999 the MPE mount (basically the EF mount but with no AF motors)

Canon is losing market share among discerning shooters in the PJ/news/editorial market,and the wedding/portraiture market as well...did you see the Tour De France 2008 photo coverage pool? Nikon D3's outnumbered Canons among top-level sports action shooters. Same thing with this year's NBA Finals...I was not too surprised to see how heavily Nikon-dominated the baseline shooters were for those very tightly-controlled,prized shooting locations. Canon was like one guy out of six...I recall my college PJ days when Nikon dominated, heavily, and there were eight of us with Nikon systems and two with Canon. One of the hot young Canon guys had a COMPLETE FD system with two F1-n bodies w motors, 24/1.4-L, 85 1.2-L, 300/2.8 L, 35/1.4-L, and a few other really,really nice Canon lenses. Then, he went to the then-astounding (but VERY slow-on-the-trigger-in auto metering) Canon T-90 bodies...the first really "modern Canon"...and then, within about a year, his entire fortune in camera gear was made obsolete when Canon pulled the EOS stunt on its users without so much as a word of warning... He was at first, incredibly disappointed that the T-90 had exceptionally loooong, slow delay between pressing the shutter and making the exposure in certain metering modes, which rendered them USELESS for his specialty, sports/action work. And by slow, I mean like 1/10 second. He was livid about that, since it rendered the touted "innovation" useless in actual professional use.

The Canon F1-n is/was an instantly responsive, professional camera; the T-90 was touted as one, but it was actually kind of cheezy, and it lasted less than 2 years before being scrapped. When Canon obsoleted his lens mount, his investment in professional level lenses was suddenly made much,much less valuable on the resale market. Anyway...I've seen Canon's marketing department lead it astray several times over the last 30 years. Maybe it's the influence of their photocopier division spilling over to the camera guys...lol..or maybe it's the printer division playing tricks....or maybe it's the scanner division's influence...lol

 

[molested_cow]

If you really want to experience full frame and learn the basics, there's no better route than to pick up a 35mm SLR instead.

And this is where a large,large majority of younger people in their 20's, and many digital newcomers have zero experience; they have never,ever,ever, owned a full-frame camera...they have ZERO experience with anything except what they own now, today, which is typically either a beginner-level, or a consumer-level, crop-body d-slr. People whose tastes and budgets run to Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Burger King are everywhere, trying to convince others that PBR and BK are just great!! Fine beer, and a great 'restaurant'. Snort.

molested_cow, you are one of very FEW people here who has just recently made the transition from 35mm film slr and DIRECTLY to the Nikon D700 full frame as your first d-slr, so your experiences are vastly different than those who are shooting say, a Rebel XSi or a Nikon D3000. Your experience is very atypical of most serious enthusiasts, many of us whom had to go through multiple generations of APS-C-ONLY cameras before getting a digital full-frame camera. And yet, here we see multitudes of people who have never,ever owned, never even shot a SINGLE picture with a 24x36mm capture area, trying to appear to be authority figures on cameras. Laughable.

Yes I know. When I first found out about cropped sensor, I was like WTF that's INSULTING!!!! I mean, I'd feel "cheap" to go for a cropped sensor just because I can't afford the real one... that's just psychological.
What bothered me was, why would I want a crop sensor that limits what I can get with my lens? It's like driving a Ferrari with speed limiter set at 60mph. That's why I waited for a decently affordable full frame (D700) before I jumped in. The D700 was considerably cheaper than its bigger brother, and being at the end of its run, the price has dropped even though I wished it had dropped more.

In any case, I'd still encourage any person who really want to learn the fundamentals about photography to start from 35mm. The learning curve is steep, but you will have much better understanding of why things are the way they are. The transition to digital is a piece of cake from there once you know the fundamentals well.

And yes I am still using Ai-S lens on my D700 and they work just fine with each other.

I've used some cropped sensor bodies. Canon XTi, 60D, Nikon D200 and D90. First reaction: WUT is this tiny view finder doing in there??!?!

If you want to do landscape and want the most out of your wide angle lens, full frame is the right way to go. If you want the best out of your 50mm prime, full frame is the way to go.
If you use telephoto for wildlife, use crop sensor that has high megapixel count.

I hope eventually all DSLRs will get full frame, because that's what they are supposed to be.

 

[JClishe]

Did you even read the quote where the OP specifically stated that he shoots weddings?

I see nothing in this thread where the OP discusses what kind of shooting he does. I see the quote that you're referring to, but I have no idea where that came from, because I don't see it anywhere in this thread.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Did you even read the quote where the OP specifically stated that he shoots weddings?

I see nothing in this thread where the OP discusses what kind of shooting he does. I see the quote that you're referring to, but I have no idea where that came from, because I don't see it anywhere in this thread.

Clicking the little arrows next to the name will take you to the quoted post, in this case, yes from another thread he made after this one.
If you review the OP's posting history, you will see he has been contemplating getting a 5DmkII for over a year, and has asked about it numerous times. :meh:

 

[manaheim]

I read what you wrote.

That's why I said you read it wrong, not that you didn't read it. lol

Again, I read what you wrote.

You wrote "IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line"

You have no idea what kind of images the OP shoots, yet you tell him a full frame body is worth the investment.

You wrote "You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses.".

Again, you have no idea what kind of images the OP shoots, yet you clearly imply that a full frame body would be better him.

My reply was that you are making generalizations that do not take into account the OP's intend use for his camera. I read what you wrote, and based on what you wrote, my reply is accurate. If, however, my reply doesn't accurately reflect how you feel about this topic, then the problem isn't that I read it wrong. The problem is that you wrote it wrong.

:LOL: Wait... explain to me how "what kind of images he shoots" has any bearing on whether he should buy the best camera and lenses available vs. just going for whatever manages to expose light to "film"?